NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Omkara ARC's Claim In Vikas WSP CIRP, Holds Creditors Cannot Override IBC Timelines

The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 March dismissed an application filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking admission of its claim as a secured financial creditor in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Ltd.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh held that the claim, filed 1,267 days after the prescribed deadline and after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the resolution plan, could not be entertained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The Tribunal observed:

“In the present case, not only had the extended period long expired, but the Resolution Plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors prior to the filing of the claim. Entertaining such a belated claim at this stage would amount to unsettling the commercial decision already taken by the Committee of Creditors and would defeat the time-bound framework of the Code.”

Omkara ARC filed the application through its authorised representative, Jeevan Kumar, against the order of Darshan Singh Anand, the Resolution Professional (RP) of Vikas WSP Pvt. Ltd, on 13 August 2025. The RP had rejected the applicant's claim regarding its secured debt.

Omkara ARC had acquired the debt of Vikas WSP Ltd from the Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund (SASF) through an assignment agreement dated 31 August 2024. The debt originated from credit facilities extended by IDBI, secured by hypothecation and mortgage.

On 2 February 2022, the NCLT admitted a Section 7 application filed by Bank of India and initiated the CIRP against Vikas WSP Pvt. Ltd. The RP issued a public announcement inviting claims and fixed 16 February 2022 as the last date for submission.

Recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur, had concluded with a recovery certificate in 2004. Payments totaling over Rs 108 crore were made between 2012 and 2015. In January 2018, the Recovery Officer recorded satisfaction of the decree, though SASF challenged this finding in appeal.

After acquiring the debt, Omkara ARC issued intimation letters to the corporate debtor and its directors in September 2024. It claimed that Rs 387.85 crore remained outstanding as of the CIRP commencement date.

However, Omkara ARC became aware of the CIRP only in July 2025 during proceedings before the DRT. It filed its claim in Form‑C on 6 August 2025, long after the statutory deadline of 16 February 2022.

The RP rejected the claim, citing the 1,267-day delay and the fact that the CoC had already approved a resolution plan on 25 August 2022, pending Tribunal approval.

Omkara ARC sought condonation of delay, contending that the late filing was unintentional and arose from the timing of the debt assignment and non‑disclosure of CIRP proceedings by suspended directors. The applicant also argued that, as a secured financial creditor, non-consideration of its claim would cause prejudice.

The RP countered that Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulations mandates submission of claims within the timeline specified in the public announcement, with a maximum extension of 90 days. The RP also argued that admitting new claims at this stage would unsettle the resolution framework and undermine the CoC's commercial wisdom.

The NCLT agreed with the RP, noting that the CIRP commenced on 2 February 2022, the last date for claims was 16 February 2022, and the CoC approved the resolution plan on 25 August 2022. The Tribunal observed that Omkara ARC filed its claim on 6 August 2025, grossly beyond the statutory timeline.

The Bench distinguished Rainbow Papers, noting that it addressed recognition of statutory secured creditors in liquidation, not belated claims in CIRP. The Tribunal emphasised that recognition as a secured creditor does not override mandatory IBC timelines.

The NCLT also rejected the contention that the RP should have independently collated the claim from corporate debtor records or MCA filings. The Bench further observed:

“Reflection of a liability in the books of account does not dispense with the requirement of filing a formal claim in accordance with Regulation 12 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016. Allowing belated claims at this stage would disturb the level playing field among creditors who filed their claims within time and would reopen the distribution mechanism contemplated under the Resolution Plan.”

Accordingly, the NCLT disposed of the application.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Manish Jain with Advocates Divya Sharma and Manan Jain

For Respondents: Advocates IPS Oberoi and Preeti Chauhan